NCBF vs Micropractice Sustainability Fee?

[Guest guest]

Myria, I found it at www.stewmonesmd.com. Yes, it is discouraging when the

patients you work so hard for don't seem to realize that you are giving them

extra service at your own expense. But hang in there, girl! I am watching and

rooting for you and will probably be following soon. I am still toying with the

idea of calling my fee a " Micropractice Enhanced Access Fee. " (Or maybe even

better, a " Micropractice Sustainability Fee. " Any other ideas out there?) I

would state that the fee is for the purpose of allowing me to sustain a practice

that will be capped at approximately 1/3 of the number of patients carried by

the average full-time family doctor. I don't see how any insurer can say that

they pay for that! Then, for the patient, I will expand that the benefits this

small practice size will provide to them are far-above-average access to

same-day appointments, longer visits to more thoroughly address their needs,

24/7 cell phone access to their personal physician, forms/prior

authorizations/prescription renewals done outside of regular office visits when

appropriate, etc, you get the idea. Does anyone see any major problems with

this?---Sharlene

> > >

> > > Does anyone have a non-covered benefit letter that the insurances accepted

as not being in conflict with their contract?

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I like your idea of Micropractice Sustainability Fee. The fee is to keep visits unrushed and personal. Healing is about relationships not just pills. I wouldn't say more than that. I agree with the person who advised me to "keep it simple" so there was less for the insurance guys to "'hook" into. The problems is that if you write that in a letter then patients don't immediately see the need to pay for that. Have to watch them then accusing you of "closing the practice" and not informing them. It's a shame we spend all this time dealing with this foolishness rather than reading up a a new treament......

To: Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 6:21 PM Subject: NCBF vs Micropractice Sustainability Fee?

Myria, I found it at www.stewmonesmd.com. Yes, it is discouraging when the patients you work so hard for don't seem to realize that you are giving them extra service at your own expense. But hang in there, girl! I am watching and rooting for you and will probably be following soon. I am still toying with the idea of calling my fee a "Micropractice Enhanced Access Fee." (Or maybe even better, a "Micropractice Sustainability Fee." Any other ideas out there?) I would state that the fee is for the purpose of allowing me to sustain a practice that will be capped at approximately 1/3 of the number of patients carried by the average full-time family doctor. I don't see how any insurer can say that they pay for that! Then, for the patient, I will expand that the benefits this small practice size will provide to them are far-above-average access to same-day appointments, longer visits to more

thoroughly address their needs, 24/7 cell phone access to their personal physician, forms/prior authorizations/prescription renewals done outside of regular office visits when appropriate, etc, you get the idea. Does anyone see any major problems with this?---Sharlene

> > >

> > > Does anyone have a non-covered benefit letter that the insurances accepted as not being in conflict with their contract?

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

"them" meaning the insurance companies. Sorry. To: " " < > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 8:59 PM Subject: Re: NCBF vs Micropractice Sustainability Fee?

I like your idea of Micropractice Sustainability Fee. The fee is to keep visits unrushed and personal. Healing is about relationships not just pills. I wouldn't say more than that. I agree with the person who advised me to "keep it simple" so there was less for the insurance guys to "'hook" into. The problems is that if you write that in a letter then patients don't immediately see the need to pay for that. Have to watch them then accusing you of "closing the practice" and not informing them. It's a shame we spend all this time dealing with this foolishness rather than reading up a a new treament......

To: Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 6:21 PM Subject: NCBF vs Micropractice Sustainability Fee?

Myria, I found it at www.stewmonesmd.com. Yes, it is discouraging when the patients you work so hard for don't seem to realize that you are giving them extra service at your own expense. But hang in there, girl! I am watching and rooting for you and will probably be following soon. I am still toying with the idea of calling my fee a "Micropractice Enhanced Access Fee." (Or maybe even better, a "Micropractice Sustainability Fee." Any other ideas out there?) I would state that the fee is for the purpose of allowing me to sustain a practice that will be capped at approximately 1/3 of the number of patients carried by the average full-time family doctor. I don't see how any insurer can say that they pay for that! Then, for the patient, I will expand that the benefits this small practice size will provide to them are far-above-average access to same-day appointments, longer

visits to more

thoroughly address their needs, 24/7 cell phone access to their personal physician, forms/prior authorizations/prescription renewals done outside of regular office visits when appropriate, etc, you get the idea. Does anyone see any major problems with this?---Sharlene

> > >

> > > Does anyone have a non-covered benefit letter that the insurances accepted as not being in conflict with their contract?

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Myria, If the insurance companies fuss that my practice is closed to new

patients, I will say no, since I must accept new patients at times to compensate

for the ones that drift away or die. I just have to control the rate at which

new patients come in. They are welcome to be placed on my waiting list, if they

would like. No practice with a fixed number of providers can accept an

unlimited number of patients all the time.---Sharlene

> > > >

> > > > Does anyone have a non-covered benefit letter that the insurances

accepted as not being in conflict with their contract?

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Everyone, I'm resurrecting a comment I made on Saturday, because I was hoping to

get some more opinions. I am still toying with the

idea of calling my fee a " Micropractice Enhanced Access Fee. " (Or maybe even

better, a " Micropractice Sustainability Fee. " Any other ideas out there?) I

would state that the fee is specifically for the purpose of allowing me to

sustain a practice that will be limited to approximately 1/3 of the number of

patients carried by the average full-time family doctor. I don't see how any

insurer can say that

they pay for that! Then, for the patient, I will expand that the benefits this

small practice size will provide to them are far-above-average access to

same-day appointments, longer visits to more thoroughly address their needs,

24/7 cell phone access to their personal physician, forms/prior

authorizations/prescription renewals done outside of regular office visits when

appropriate, etc, you get the idea. Does anyone see any major problems with

this?---Sharlene

> > > >

> > > > Does anyone have a non-covered benefit letter that the insurances

accepted as not being in conflict with their contract?

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Maybe some of the quiet is that we don't want to offer any legal assurances in

this gray area. I don't remember if you accept Medicare. If so, it's especially

gray, and the penalties for being wrong on this answer much bigger. As a

Medicare provider, I would not frame my fee this way.

Haresch

> > > > >

> > > > > Does anyone have a non-covered benefit letter that the insurances

accepted as not being in conflict with their contract?

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>